Are Mages and Guardians able to spend credits on artifacts to make them as powerfull as warriors can?

Why don't more do that if so?

Nihilists being overpowered is laughable. Put Celestines, not Guardians. I voted Wicca, I had more problem with them than I did warriors because I could just hinder the hell out of them.

Edit: Only thing Nihil really have going for them is death tarot..suprise suprise who also has that? Not to mention most classes can stop it like nothing, and with tumble retardedly fast it is not hard to avoid.

Edit2: I also love how everyone, included me are saying their class is the weakest or easiest to fight.. Lets face it, this thread is going to rip with bias.

Because many mages don't necessarily -need- those artifacts to be extremely powerful. Many warriors believe that they require the artifacts to be able to beat the mages.

No, not really. The only thing mages can do is buy (overpriced) artifacts to boost their damage by up to 20%. And there's no way to increase speed, to give afflictions with your attacks, etc.

It's not just that mages don't buy many credits.. How many Paladins have stacked arties?

Something about Magnagora attract people who are willing to put out money to be the best.

Because it is the best!

EDIT: and I agree that mages don't have a very wide selection of offensive artifacts...and the thing they do have is way pricey.

Where in my writing did I say warriors should not have lunge like abilities? I said they do have lunge, so they can't complain about parrying, shields, and stances being as big a deal as they like to make them out to be.



Not all warriors are a large size. Even so, a mage can be locked down with webbing, hangman, shielding, and sipping love just as easily (Oh, a person using hangman or webbing can lock me down too). There are also protection scrolls now that will help you arrive to the mages location while having to deal with less of their demesnes effects. Yet, you do not see me here complaining about how easy it is to hinder mages. I could use the same sorts of arguments, but I know they go with the territory and also that there are ways to get around them.

Being hindered is not a problem unique to warriors. Being forced to reject a person periodically can hinder Mages; a person using the new scrolls can hinder mages. A person shielding, webbing, and/or using hangman can do it too. Also, it can be done by just plain old killing the mage quickly, since most of them are very fragile (even at levels above 80). Guardians can be hindered by killing their entity, webbing them, shielding or by hurting them so much that they have to run to heal. Do you see my pattern? Every archetype can be hindered in some way or another. So trying to throw up that warriors are especially hindered by other archetypes is false, since they, just like other archetypes, now have plenty of ways to get around the hindering.



The same can be said for you becoming a mage.

I can understand you want to attack my points, but I suggest next time you make sure you are attacking what I actually said. I never said warriors should not have lunge. I said warriors do not have an effective argument in stating that they are especially hindered compared to any other class, since now they have an effective means of getting around the hindering.

Random wisdom from the dearly departed Amaru:

Mages beat guardians who beat warriors who beat mages.

Mages are very soft targets and rely on damage to kill (unless you are a geomancer, which makes you overpowered), so they don't do well against warriors. However, they are relatively unaffected by guardian hindering so long as they can avoid the instakills.

Guardians have insane hindering skills and a variety of methods to kill that don't involve reducing health to zero, which puts them at an advantage over warriors. They need to get up close to their victim to attack, though, and absolve et al. don't work well against the high-mana mages.

Warriors just tap the bashing macro a couple times to kill most mages, who don't have the guardians' option of going with a low-int race for combat viability (again, unless something like a geomancer psionist tae'dae). Warriors get the chance to tap the bashing macro one or two times before the hindering sets in against guardians, though, and a guardian that chose a tanky race over a bashing race will survive and slow the onslaught enough to try to sneak in an early mana kill.

I think Warriors are the toughest to beat. I really don't get why anyone has problems with Wiccans, or guardians to a lesser extent, as a whole. It's only with mugwump that they get -really- scary. Warriors I just find myself unable to do anything against - I either get dulak/mantakaya and piercednerve/hemiplegy every, like, 3 seconds, or just die in about 6 hits if I don't run away to give myself time to heal up. Technically if I noticed a damage warrior attacking only one area I could dodge him almost every time by parry/stancing (when I get shieldparry back) my other areas, but that's not important because the warriors with any semblance of a clue DON'T ATTACK ONE THING OVER AND OVER.

The other thing, of course, is that there's no arties to make Fae attack twice as fast, contagion hit with scabies and epilepsy every time and fire instantly so you can't cure it, or absolve able to be done at 3/4 mana. See, our damage attacks aren't the main part of our offence, unlike warriors with damage/wounds. They can upgrade their offence massively that way. And it's not like they need them, either.

EDIT: Although their offence said, I find Druids and Mages never get as screwed over by my aeon etc. as anyone else, annoyingly, so I can never get anything to stick on them. Also the fact that they can run and still fight from where I can't hit them helps. (My confusion curing being broken for some reason doesn't help though...really have to work out what's going on there.)

See my post. Rapierwhores with old forged rapiers and preferably with the overlong names (say those stupid ones with images of serenwilde anyone) are good too. In a year, anyone without artifact runes on those rapiers is going to have to convert to scimitars if they want the same levels of wounding, and then they will be just as slow as broadsword users.

I voted Warriors as the most powerful archetype, but I don't believe they are overpowered and in need of downgrades. I like the way the classes are now, especially with the new skillsets released, and I think Warriors should be the most powerful in combat.

The reason I voted Warriors is similar to what has already been said. I die against most opponents one-on-one, be they mage, guardian or warrior - but only warriors have the capacity to overwhelm me almost instantly no matter what I do.

Again, I don't think any class needs downgrading. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.


In fact, if I was going to change warriors, I would probably give them a slight upgrade. I would like to make parry useable primarily by warriors, and change 'dodge' to be far more achievable for everyone else but less effective. Instead of nullifying the attack it could simply reduce the amount of damage and wounds by taking the strike in a less damaging location. Mind you, I know very little about fighting as a warrior, so I'll leave such suggestions to those who do.

If you believe warriors should be the most powerful in combat, what tangible benefits should the other classes receive for being inferior to warriors in combat?

Skills that are affective in other ways to one-on-one combat.

No no no. No nerfing everyone's combat skills. Solo combat should be viable for every class, with no advantage to one side over all the others, because that's what the IRE combat system is designed for.

If you can come up with some that are not just role-play devices and have as much of an effect on each community that combat presently has, then I could probably support something like that.

I voted warriors. There is still the potential for warriors to get such high end damage, they can kill people (bear in mind we aren't talking about level 90 igashos... but you know, ~40-60 level Faelings, non-tanky Mage/Druid Mugwumps, etc) in like two lunges. Whereas everyone might not die and I certainly do not, I think that's kinda crappy that anyone should die instantly to a 4p attack that they can in no way possibly prevent that also requires zero setup.

Ever heard the comment "Combat begins at L60"? You should, because its been a staple of every IRE mud since the golden age of Achaea where everyone was L40-60 and nobody had a zmud system and rarely above tri-trans in their guildskills.

That would be fine, if it were completely true. What Narsrim is talking about happens to mages and druids who are in their 80s. How do you explain away what happens to them?

choosing races with low con and lightning penalties and then going up against warriors with lightning runes thereby compounding the advantage the warriors have against them.

I really should reach level 60, hey?

Warriors really can outsurpass others when it comes to pure damage, and that has been my main worry. Everything else I've seen so far from other classes can be dealth with, albeit with some difficulty in certain circumstances. But there really is not a lot you can do about someone lunging you for X (X being a high amount, more often than not) amount of damage.